Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About urdjur

urdjur's Achievements

  1. That is interesting! So how has the difference between fiends and regular casters using True Seeing been implemented in SRv4? I mean, according to Relay they are using the same opcode, so what is causing Tolgerias in your example to "unsee" me when I cast regular Invisibility (or before it is broken), while fiends are unaffected?
  2. OH!!! Light bulb moment! At first I was thinking that your posts (Relay's and Bartimaeus') directly contradicted each other yet again, but then I realized what I had been missing! A classic. You, the player, does not equal the selected character. What Barti has been saying all along is that if a regular invisibility effect is recast, YOU THE PLAYER, cannot select that enemy as a target, for the simple fact that... well, it's invisible! It doesn't matter if you select Fred the Fighter or Dave the Diviner with True Seeing active or the Demogorgon himself, you still can't select the target until it breaks its invisibility. Your True Seeing party members are actually smarter though - they can see it, the opcode works as normal. With the right script active, they might even be able to target it with single target spells (at least attacks, as Relay points out). You won't, though. It's not that SCS "force targets" invisible creatures. If I understand correctly, all SCS does all the time is use scripts after all. Yeah, sometimes they cast True Seeing if you walk past them Invisible, but there's sense and internal realism to that. And if that is so, then it won't matter if you recast Invisibility, because they still have the opcode, and their script, and they still see you. It's the player that gets gimped by regular invisibility, whether recast or pristine. Not the in-game characters, whether PC or NPC. Does that about sum it up?
  3. Thanks for the exhaustive reply. 1. Bummer. It kind of makes the thief ability situationally OP, and makes the refined illusion spell battle system in SRv4 somewhat moot, as long as your party has a thief. 2. I don't have a current install to test, but I have one reason to doubt a part of what you're saying here: I distinctly recall some demons even waaay back in vanilla being able to see through regular invisibility as an "innate ability" - that is, by virtue of the same opcode that I believe True Seeing now applies to its caster. For example, I recall one time when a scout in my party who was only protected by regular (level 2) Invisibilty (long duration and unbroken obviously) got jumped by a demon who simply saw right through the invisibility without any spell casting involved. As I understood it, this was by virtue of its opcode, which True Seeing now grants. The opcode doesn't care if it's regular or improved invisibility, it just ignores it all together as if there was no such thing as invisibility within the game (there is no dispelling involved). I may be wrong of course, or maybe the opcode mechanics have changed, but if I am, this would present other interesting problems. For example, you're saying that as long as I don't break regular invisibility and combine it with non-detection, absolutely nothing can target me. That is immensly powerful. Not only can you do many things with impunity without breaking invisibility, but there's also the issue of Mislead (reapplying regular Invisibility every round) and clones (SR Project Image makes you regularly invisible if I recall - now my clone can cast without breaking my untargetability?). Either way, this is a MAJOR point that I still feel uncertain about. For solo playthroughs it will have particular significance, because if there is only one invisible, non-detectable target, no enemy script will cast a single spell because there is nowhere to point it at even if it is AoE (IIRC, SCS used cheesy scripting and small AoE counter-measures to get past this - and still I saw a lot of buffing followed by no action at all as the buffs expired, because AI had nothing else to do). At first, I thought the "demonic opcode" bit was a bit shocking in how it changed the entire targetability mechanics I was used to, but now I'm thinking it would be a very good thing if True Seeing and friends indeed ignored ALL forms of invisibility as far as targeting for the affected individual is concerned (i.e. as an opcode and not a dispel effect). It would just solve so many AI problems in one fell swoop, and relegate low level invisibility magic as a convencience to fool simple folks and monsters, but not high level casters - regardless of what actions you take. 3. I'm not really sure how I would express it, just throwing it out there. I might wright up a guide in the distant future once I've reinstalled the game and reacquianted myself with the exact new mechanics. While it might not be in perfect detail, I think this manner of presentation might be clearer to some users than the outdated flowchart I've seen floating around these threads.
  4. I have now read through this entire thread and I'm baffled by the dedication and persistence you guys put into these last "finishing touches" that make all the difference for the player. I'm also amazed at how many things there are that can and have gone wrong, still! Keep up the good work! Having expressed my gratitude, I have a few suggestions, more on the flavor side of things. 1) With the new approach to invisibility counter-measures ("demon" opcode rather than dispelling), could you please bring the Thief ability in line with this, even though it's outside the scope of "spell" revisions? Much like Inquisitor's true seeing has been harmonized, it no longer makes any sense for a thief skill to dispel illusions, but rather detect them. 2) The spell "non-detection", as I understand its current functionality, is really a misnomer. It doesn't foil detection via True Seeing, Detect Invisibility etc. (indeed, nothing can anymore), but it prevents illusory effects from being dispelled by counter-measures such as True Seeing and Oracle. Hence, non-detection is exactly what it doesn't offer. I propose that it be renamed for clarity. If we want to use existing spell names from the D&D world, the best I can come up with is "Permanency". PnP Permanency made the duration of various spells permanent, so it's not the same effect, but it fits with what non-detection wants to do: give illusions more staying power. 3) On a related note, I'd like to suggest adopting a meta-terminology of sorts for the current "spell battle" system, to facilitate discussions between SCS/SR users out of game more than add to spell descriptions. The way I've come to understand the current system is that there are basically three categories of spells: protections, counter-measures and foils. Counter-measures remove or handle the protections in some way, and foils prevent the counter-measures from having their effect. So for example, True Seeing is a counter-measure to Improved Invisibility, and Non-Detection is a (partial) foil for True Seeing. There are, then, 4 different categories of protections: combat protections, spell protections, illusory protections and other protections. The first three have specific counter-measures and foils, whereas the last category is a catch-all with dispel/remove magic and dispel screen as generic counter-measures/foil. I don't intend this as introducing new functionality to SR spells, but as a way of grouping and making sense of spells to make it more understandable for new and returning players. What do you think about adopting this terminology or something along these lines?
  5. OK, the picture is getting clearer from reading your replies, and all the first page threads on the SR and SCS subforums If I understand correctly, SRR modifies the installation of any SR version to apply your changes? But was that only for v4b15, or is there still some point to using SRR if running v4b16? Is anything from SRR left out in v4b16, or will SRR 1.07 actually risk overwriting something that's even more updated in b16 compared to b15? The 4+3 remaining changes for a "final" v4 don't seem very important to me. I still find it hard to read up on what spells actually do now. For example, it seems like Fire Shield protects from Insect Spells only as of v4b16, even though this change has been discussed for years. I still haven't found out if Animate Dead suite of spells is only for evil casters nowadays Also, the spell system. Wow. An updated flow chart would really help. If I understand the biggest change correctly though, it's that nothing can really prevent targeting as such anymore as long as you have revealing magic like See Invisibility, True Seeing etc. There is no SI:Divination and Non-detection still doesn't stop you seeing invisible and being able to target as normal. Basically, every spell caster is a demon now. Invisibility as a foil to targeting as such is pretty much moot, whereas it used to be the Stoneskin/PfMW against nasty magic. Is there anything that stops Maze/Imprisonment now? I gather Mind Blank blocks power words, at least. I'm also wondering about Dispel Screen (or was it Dispel Shield?). Will it always absorb and get cancelled by any Dispel Magic effect, even if it would have been ineffective? For example, Carsomyr's level 15 dispel ability against a CL30 Lich, will it cancel the liches Spell Deflection so that the next time when Keldorn uses his own CL40 Dispel, all combat protections will be removed so that the lich can now be hacked to pieces? Also, will an area dispel cancel multiple spell deflections, or must it be targeted? Also what about Pierce Magic/Shield (I forget the name - the one that is like Breach+)? If you have a wizard with: Dispel Shield + Spell Deflection + Stoneskin, would it ignore the Dispel Shield but not dispel it, remove the Spell Deflection and then finally remove all combat protections?
  6. Thanks for the quick reply. Yeah, enemy spell casters relying on a spell that players no longer have access to sounds terrible to me too, so I guess I would prefer SRR for that reason alone. What was the intent with SRR and is there any real hope in waiting for a SR V4 Final? Is there anything crucial that's left out of your SRR that is beyond for you to fix?
  7. Hi! I've been away from these forums for quite some time but I'm now contemplating a new playthrough, using SR and SCS as my main mods. I'm confused. The last days I've tried to get a grip on what the latest version of SR is and what is it compatible with, but I'm not sure I've gotten there. To sum up the situation as I understand it: 1) demivrgvs has left the forums before releasing SRv4. The latest official version of his work is SRv3.something and it has a readme that has consistent updated spell descriptions for its actual game effects. 2) kreso resumed work on SRv4 but is now also MIA before releasing anything final. I can't find a readme that details what changes, at long last, the last version (is it 4.16?) applies to the spells as compared to v3 or vanilla. 3) There now also seems to be a revised SR that is provided by Bartimaeus - I suppose it is in response to kreso being MIA but also seems to be developed in parallell to 4.15+? I also lack a readme here - the thread on it has some entries on some arcane spells and summons, but I don't think it's a comprehensive list of changes compared to vanilla or SRv3? 4) There is also the issue of a special SCS version also released by kreso (?) that is supposed to make better use of some version of SR (which one?) that I should maybe use? 5) Also there's the issue of compatibility with the base game. If I'm interested in BG2 and ToB, is Enhanced Edition still my best bet? What I would like is an as bug free, stable and artificially intelligent/well-balanced playthrough as possible, and I'm at a loss which version combination of which sub-version(s) of SR and SCS that can provide that for me. What would you recommend I try? I would also very much appreciate a complete documentation/readme of what changes to spells that SR now applies, so that I can plan my party. For example, is Animate Dead an evil-only spell now? Are mage HLAs innate abilities? How does the current SR/SCS spell battle system work with spell immunity, different deflection styles, area based spell protection removals etc?
  8. I will only comment sporadically on some parts of the first post as I don't really use Divine Spells that much. If the Create Undead spell line becomes incorporated into arcane spells, I suggest making these available to clerics with an evil/death-like domain. I'm not sure what your plans for Kit Revisions are, but I'd like it if there were many domain options (not necessarily many kits though, but I assume they'll go together). Similarly, the MS line could be made available to domains related to summoning etc. (In 3.5, I think all clerics had the full summon monster line available, but I know you prefer clerics to be light on summoning in general). Searing Light is perhaps more of a Lathander thing too? As a Divine spell, I think this has more merit if you can bother creating it. It will just "be there", however situational, in case you need it. In general, I think clerics/druids should be better at warding others (in particular) against different damage types, compared to arcane casters. So yes, they should get it IMO. And perhaps you will want to consider restricting some wizardly protections to self-only (but I know some people hate the same name spell doing different things for different casters at different levels etc. etc.) Think you know how I feel about this - I think you should do a 1-7 line of Nature's Allys and a duration:concentration line of Elementals, ending with the HLA, and that should be the sum total of druid summoning (not counting insect swarms of course). I think it's important that these summon lines are varied, so not only melee tanks. A few casters (like the Nymph) is very appropriate IMO. (Similarly, the undead suite should have a nerfed mummy cleric or something IMO).
  9. Probably not. But even if you leave everything as it is, you've already implicitly drawn a line right there, where some things make great sense and others less so. I'd say the more of these "finishing touches" you have time/interest to add, the better - but it's also fine as it is and a bottom priority. Ah, excellent. Thanks for clearing that up. Looks like non-detection will be a must, at least for some defensive strategies. Generally speaking, is it very difficult for David to adjust such things after a finalized version of Spell Revisions has been released? I understand the problem, but it feels very backwards to have to respect an AI adapted to a slightly "rougher" version of SR when trying to make a better version. Adjusting a Mordy Sword counter here and there etc. should still amount to less than 1% of the work originally put into SCS spell caster optimization compared to the vanilla game, right? Couldn't it be worth the extra effort for an absolutely final version of SR? Why is that, game mechanically? Is it because of 100% MR that cannot be lowered or 100% magic damage type immunity? Or some Golem-unique issue? Anyway, not to drag the discussion out - I have no strong sentiments re: Disintegrate and golems. OK, I see where you're coming from. And I like the spell idea as such, as long as it's balanced (and it seems to be, on second thought). I agree that the role of the mantles should be exactly "improved PfMW". Just like Absolute Immunity will be "very much improved PfMW". Even if the 2 mantles were simply exact PfMW clones, it would still be better than nothing and reduce the much discussed strain on level 6 slots. I'm suggesting minor tweaks/additions to them, so as not to make Absolute Immunity "come out of the blue". For example, Level 7 Mantle could be precisely PfNW + PfMW combined and maybe an extra 20% Magic Resistance for the short duration. Improved Mantle could add 50% Magic Resistance and perhaps some other immunity. This would still make them unique for their levels and provide a natural progression to AI at level 9. I like your reasoning here re: item 3. The problem is that if that is really the case, then it is already OP for certain class combinations. The dual level 9 Kensai/level X Mage springs to mind. Leave it, it is fine and balanced like it is. At least with this spell, they can protect themselves via Magic Resistance or Death Ward - contrary to Imprisonment. An epic warrior walking into an epic spell battle without the gear or buffs to withstand death effects deserves to get slain instantly IMO. Who in their right mind would trust a measly saving throw anyway to do the job? An epic warrior must essentially be a "flesh golem" to stand a chance against high arcana. Also, it TARGETS which is a huge thing when it comes to countering it pro-actively (especially for thieves). If you have a save and/or a hp limit, how will you make this more appealing than WotB? One option would be to allow a target with HD > CL a save, but even that makes it pretty unappealing IMO. Easy! Any event must take a time and a place. TS creates a time-bubble, a short lived demi-plane of time if you will, where you can create your own effects but they will not "take place" (or more precisely: "take time") until the spell elapses and your timeline merges with the one that appears frozen to you. Much like you can't affect the ethereal or astral world without going ethereal or astral, you cannot affect the normal time dimension when you're in one of your own creation.
  10. OK, seems like a good motive. Then it's not specifically summons that they need, but offensive spells. But I like your idea here. Perhaps there will be some sort of shadow evocation option for them too? Options like these alongside things like Phantasmal Killer and Weird should make Illusion a rather versatily speciality. On Evocation summons IMO, I think you should streamline the evocation spells in this line to build on the same mechanic. If Mordy Sword deals magic damage rather than physical damage, should it really have hit points at all? I think you should implement this similarly as the ball lightning. I also like your idea of removing blunt damage from MMM and have them deal fire only. More fitting since it is evocation rather than conjuration IMO. In general, I think this line of evocations should: *Ignore Magic Resistance *Deal elemental or force damage as appropriate *Use to-hit rolls, but not count as physical weapons (as in, "only +2 weapons or better" conditions don't apply, but immunity to say magic damage or electricity damage works). Also if you do this, you're a frost and an acid spell short of a complete elemental suite using this mechanic. Perhaps include Snilloc's Snowballs and Acid Arrow in the same mechanic? Gives a useful work around for evokers who are otherwise badly thwarted by Magic Resistance: Now they have a range of spells to attack AC instead, if that happens to be a weaker spot on the enemy I don't know about the snowballs, but didn't acid arrow require a to-hit roll in the original 2ed version?
  11. First off, let me just say that the effort to fill every available spell slot with quality, balanced and fitting material is a commendable if formidable task. Kudos to you Demi! Now to the feedback you request in the OP: Will you include BG1 versions of the familiars, much like there are ToB versions of them? Otherwise, playing BGT(utu) with SRv4 and a protagonist arcane caster could amount to a free, fully fledged Pseudodragon from the get go, which is kinda like starting with a Glabrezu familiar in SoA. Level 1 MS-I: See my comments in the v4 Summons thread for the MS I-IX suite. Very high priority IMO. Fog Cloud/Mist: I had a bad feeling about this, then I read a suggestion to only make it last as long as PfMW. I think that's a great idea and completely in line with my suggestions in the v4 revisions thread on a "PfMW" suite of spells (including mantles and Absolute Immunity) - a collection of short duration, casting time 1, "oh shit"-defenses. This seems fine for a level 1 implementation of such a spell. However, not strictly necessary. Step/Hop: Yes please. High priority. Fatigue: Looks nice. IMO though, I think a full level I-IX suite of Create Undead spells are a greater priority for necro, if it comes to that. See my thoughts in the Summons thread. Ice Dagger: Yawn. To me, the snowballs at level 2 is more than enough. Level 2 MS2: See MS1 above. The specific creature used is not very important to me. With the "summon more monster of a lesser MS level instead" via a ToBex menu implementation (à la 3.5 PnP), balancing the creatures between one another and providing versatility across the spell suite as a whole is more important. As a rule of thumb then, one MS2 monster should be worth 2 MS1 monsters (again see my comments in the v4 summons thread). Very high prio. GEL: More electricity damage is always welcome, but not strictly necessary. I'd prefer to make room for a "Create Undead II" here. SSS: Yes please, more frost at low levels is more important/scarce than lightning. I also like the streamlining of having frost based always deal 1d4+1 rather than 1d6 (same average, but more "consistent" than fire/lightning). Will Ice Storm also use 1d4+1 damage dice? Resist Fire/Cold: Please make this Resist Energy (for arcane and divine caster alike) as you suggest. A 50% selectable resistance via a ToBex menu is not very "daring" IMO, just good practice consistent with your plans for the lvl 5 energy immunities. High priority IMO. Level 3 Animate Skeletons: I'm with you 100% here, see the v4 summons thread for my ideas on how to incorporate this just like the MS and AS suites. Also as a sidenote, there's no real need to have a low level summon be upgraded at a higher CL if you follow this route - just put the upgrade in a higher spell slot - it will save you time and effort. Low level summons are still useful as distractions, to draw out Banishments or trigger traps (if you go with that suggestion of mine Icelance: Sure why not. Moderate prio IMO - level 3 has so many canonic invocations already, but "ice is nice". Level 4 Phantasmal Killer: Yes, good idea High prio in my book. Vitriolic Sphere: Yes, for the reasons you state. Also high prio. MFM: Yes to making this and FA target individually (Magic Missile too?). In fact, now that I think about it, perhaps this would be a good way to implement *all* "party friendly" AoE spells like SSS and even ADHW too? (If it works with the AI). As for damage, the need for balance in BG takes priority over PnP in my book, so tweak away until you're happy with it Very high priority now that Skull Trap and ADHW are "necromantic" in nature. Enervation: I like Ardani's suggestion to make this replace Contagion (causing disease feels more like an evil priest thing to me, plus it's unappealing). However you decide to implement this, I think it should simply be a lesser version of the 9th level spell (so one should probably look at both of these simultaneously when designing the mechanics). Moderate priority, if only for replacing an underused spell. Dimensional Anchor: Not needed at all. Narrow pro-active defenses are horrible IMO. Spell deflection etc. is already a counter to the effects you mention. Specific protections are needed more to counter creature abilities (like fire breathing or death gazes) than spells. Animate Ghouls: A fine candidate for Create Undead IV? Level 5 Swift Etheralness: YES! Yet another spell that fits into the "panic button" suite I have mentioned earlier (with level I fog up to level IX Absolute Immunity). Might I suggest moving PfNW to level 3/4 to make it more useful in BG1 and possibly PfNM to level 2 and make it powerful but 3-4 rounds duration too. That IMO would balance this spell as the 5th level "panic button". High prio IMO. Waves of Fatigue: Seems nice and a high prio to improve necro selection. I suggest incorporating the summon shadows into Create Undead V of course. Ball Lightning: This is great, great news. Will [force] damage dissipate it just as it would a Mordy Sword, or perhaps "short circuiting" it with electrical damage is more appropriate? If only 1 is permitted, perhaps the same rule should be applied to Mordy Sword (*takes cover* lol), especially if the summon cap is removed. The sword could be improved somewhat to compensate for only having one IMO. Ball Lightning is very highly anticipated by me! GrDimDoor: OH YES! Very high prio. Looks like level 5 is gonna be an exciting spell level with tough picks for a sorceror, at last. I would suggest at least a 1 turn duration though. Mind Fog: I have no PnP experience of this spell and it looks a bit too narrow for my tastes, but "vive la difference" if there's room. Low prio IMO. Acid Sheath: Seems reasonable, moderate prio. Various: None of the spells seem interesting here IMO. Please consider my suggestions in the v4 summons thread as this level could easily fit Summon Monster V, Create Undead V and Planar Binding. Level 6 Shades: Why are illusory summons needed? Aren't the illusory clones sufficient? Not sure which schools illusionists give up, but in v4 you'll essentially have summons in necromancy, conjuration AND evocation. And frankly, you must give up something if you specialize. If you decide on this spell, I'd implement it as a quasi-real Summon Monster 6 clone where the monsters summoned are very weak (1 hp?) but deal double damage unless you have true seeing or something like that (and the AI should handle them as "real" normal monsters). Definetely a glass cannon concept as you suggest, but not necessary to make a dedicated summon for this spell. Good "gated" dudes is a higher priority IMO (see my summoning suggestions). Another illusion spell is probably needed here though, so I suppose it has a moderate prio. Eyebite: Yes sir, very flavorful and canonic indeed. One of my PnP favorites. High prio! OFS: Nice, but with SSS, Ice Storm and Cone of Cold available it's not really necessary. I do like all schools having at least 2 spells/level though. Moderate prio. Improved Slow: This looks highly interesting to support summons/party fighters. Not many things are immune to slow, right? High prio. Also, I suggest incorporating the Skeleton Warrior into the Create/Summon Undead suite. Level 7 MS-VII: You know my sentiments on these already Conjure GrElem: See my comments in the v4 summons thread. I suggest making a Planar Binding suite that I envisioned would also incorporate the geneies. I think Druids should get more/better elementals (while clerics should get more/better infernals/celestials through Planar Ally) than arcane casters, but I'm fine with mixing in some elementals into the arcane spell suite too. Prying/Watchful Eye: Unless you incorporate this into the Invisible Stalker summon, which I feel should be part of the Summon Monster suite as per 3.5 PnP, I think there is a need for better arcane trap detection than what the rabbit familiar can provide. So it depends on what you do with the stalker really. Btw, have you given any thought to implementing Project Image as a short ranged Farsight with an "untouchable" animation through which you can cast your very own spells but from a distance (as suggested in the other thread)? Gets around the whole duplication of the spell portfolio problem! 8th level Mind Blank: Will it be castable on allies? If not, have you considered putting it at level 7 instead to make it a bit more appealing? MS VIII: See the summons thread. To reiterate, I do suggest a 1 round/level duration on the entire spell suite to make the balance less of an issue. Also being countered by Banishment is a pretty significant thing. Conjure Elder Elemental: For druids IMO. But see my thoughts on a Planar Binding suite in the summons thread. Create Greater Undead: Incoporate into the spell suite as no. VIII. Lightning Ring: Definitely agree on the need for more evoker spells on this level. I like it, and with the acid sheath it does really complete a suite of offensive/defensive spells of all elemental types, that grow appropriately more powerful by spell level. It's elegant, cool and a high priority IMO. Polar Ray: Yes to a 20d6 single target no save frost ray with auto hit. Clean and perfectly balanced for a level 8 evocation IMO. Moderate to high prio. Mass Polymorph: It is only fitting - this will be to Poly Other what Weird is to Phantasmal Killer etc. SoI/SoC: I have no qualms with keeping Bioware non-PnP spells, so if an 8th level SoC is better, I say go for it. Solipsism: Mass Feeblemind sounds rather interesting situationally and on par with mass poly, so why not? Moderate priority if only for the "2+ spells per school and level" rule. Exec Eyes: I love using summons and buffing them up. Between this, mass slow and tele field with no save, I foresee great battles in the future for my sorceror's minions. Will these type of spells affect evocation summons like ball lightning and mordy sword too? I believe I can haste Mordy Swords in v3, but perhaps that's a bit unrealistic no? 9th level Foresight: I only recall this spell by name from PnP so I can't really comment. IIRC what it does, the challenge will be to make it compete with Absolute Immunity. Weird: Truly a high prio IMO. And certainly possible has as much right to live alongside WotB as Phantasmal Killer has to live despite Finger of Death. It will be a challenge to make both equally appealing yet different though. Shadow Clone: A possibility but not a priority IMO. I'd rather fit the last Create Undead spell here if it comes to that. MS-IX: Agreed on being mandatory (I feel the same about Summon/Create Undead IX). To me, these spells compete with Gate-type spells by being more convenient and not requiring a drawback. See my thoughts on this in the v4 summons thread. Mass Domination: Extremely powerful for 2 reasons: it is very rare that all foes in an encounter are immune (pure undead or golems basically), and it is very rare that all will save. Each failed save basically counts as 2 failed saves from a WotB, because you gain an ally on top of removing a threat. If you go ahead with this, the save penalty must be less than the one for WotB to balance it IMO. Great job so far! I may be a bit late, but if I can also make a personal suggestion to incorporate a canonical spell, I would suggest Magic Jar. My oh my I had fun with that spell in PnP. I suggest an implementation similar to Poly Self, greater dim door or eyebite. For the duration, you can attempt to dominate/possess a target once per round, but never the same target twice and not if protected from evil. If you succeed, your own body drops unconscious (best to make it invisible etc. first). Then when the target dies, you return to your body and may dominate again if the duration is still active. Ideally, you would be able to explore about in another body and walk about among hostiles without them attacking you (since you look like Gruff, the ogre). And if you walk out of long range, say, the spell would end prematurely. What do you think?
  12. Excellent! Nice touch! My sentiments exactly. A mass heal trap + damage to non-undead would be a pretty powerful tool for a necromancer though I thought all AoE spells were made friendly for the AI, but perhaps SCS works differently? Wow, another link brimming with v4 material! *drool* Expect comments in that thread too later Why the hesitation? If it's programming, I know this has been done before in an old mod. If it's play balance, most thiefly functions can be had as level 2 spells already (knock/battering ram, find traps, invisibility) so trading 1 summon for 1 trap (because it will probably die) is hardly o.p. IMO. And we agree that such a change makes sense logically, and you wanted trap removing functionality in Invisible Stalker to begin with... this is just a more discrete way of implementing it OK, now for the wall of text LOL! I'll use the remainder of this post to comment on the spells listed in the opening post. Other spells will be handled in another post. Oh, and I have little experience/interest in the divine spells, so I'll limit myself to the arcane ones: A general comment/prayer is that whatever version you decide upon for a spell (such as Flame Arrow), please pretty please update the spell description document in game and on the site so that it actually describes exactly what the spell does game mechanically in no uncertain terms. Thanks in advance! Level 1 Arcane Spells: All changes seem fine, no additional comments. Level 2: Great. Will the PnP flammability of Web be implemented somehow? Level 3: Non-detection: I don't find a partial, save-based protection very appealing :/ Would you like to buy insurance without knowing when you're covered? Who would actually memorize this spell, let alone pick it as a sorceror? I suggest making it work more like a Spell Shield for Divination effects. It cancels itself when "struck" by a divination effect, but you're immune to that divination effect (or it makes it "backfire" and cancels the diviniation too). I also suggest either long duration or short c.t. on this so it can be used in response to thwart a True Seeing. Skull trap damage: IMO, damage caps and save penalties can be used to balance spells against each other. If the level 3 gold standard for AoE is 10d6 max, no penalty, for example for Fireball, then we need to compare Skull Trap to it and see if it merits something else. I think [necromantic] is slightly more appealing than [fire], and comparing DBF to Fireball, the delay on the trap must be a benefit. Does the smaller range and AoE on the trap compared to Fireball really merit a higher damage cap with these things considered? I don't think so. I think all the lvl 3 damage spells should be 10d6 max unless for a very good reason. 15d6 is appropriate around level 4-6 and 20d6 for levels 7-9. Level 4: Damn you! You're making the lvl 4 spells even cooler and more appealing! How is my sorceror gonna make do with 5 picks? Level 5: Breach: Breach not dispelling stoneskin will have a huge impact. Not quite as much as removing Spell Immunity, but almost. My prediction is that this will: A) Make casters even more powerful compared to fighters B) Make casters less able to support allied fighters against opposing casters, encouraging the use of arcane vs. arcane solo strategies Is this what you wish to do? It's fine by me, since I play 95% as a solo sorceror and enemies don't have a lot of weapons with added effects/elemental damage. In fact, I might not even bother with Mislead etc. If True Sight -> Breach still won't dispel Stoneskin. Let them Breach! I'll use spell deflection and spell shield against dispel effects, AoE damage and save-or-dies anyway in v4. Then I can skip PfMW too as a standard buff and only use it when I really need it (against nasty attack-based effects). In fact, I think non-breachability will make Stoneskin better than PfMV in more than half of all fights. If you do this, I hope there will be a higher level debuff that strips Stoneskin (haven't looked at all the new v4 spells yet so I don't know). Conjure Lesser Elemental: Big yes to all changes, especially merging into one spell. Protection from Acid/etc: Same here, please merge Spell Immunity: First I thought "whoa, my days as a sorceror are over". But reading on and thinking about it, I'm convinced. Throw this broken spell out and let the players and AI adapt to the new rules Sunfire/Fireburst: If cone of cold is same level and 15d6 cold cone, I think this is balanced as a 15 d6 fire area around caster. Both have slightly "iffy" AoEs, both are powerful and neither seems instantly more appealing than the other. Level 6 Create Undead: Yes to reinstalling the Skeleton Warrior at this level. My only gripe is having both long duration summons (this and stalker) at the same level. Could the stalker be toned down to make it 5th level, or perhaps make an overview on the duration of the summons overall. Which should be 3 turns/level and which should be longer? Making SWs last 3 turns/level is a way to tone them down slightly. Disintegrate: I mostly agree here, but just to clarify, I think this should pure magic damage and not something you can be immune to (unless there's a very good reason). Hitting golems with this should be just as effective as using MM or Force Missiles (as long as you can get past their MR). The save should be the same for all - either you save and take little damage or you don't and take massive damage. The reason to cast this rather than, say, Flesh to Stone or Polymorph Other, is that very few targets are immune to magic damage and that you get a small effect even on a failed save. Also, golems are naturally resistant to the spell due to their high HP. Does this makes sense? "Logically" speaking, disintegrating undead and constructs seems like a perfectly viable strategy. Flesh to Stone: I'm not 100% sure how this is implemented currently, but why do you think it's underpowered compared to disintegrate? As long as the target is made of flesh (not incorporeal or construct), it will be destroyed utterly on a failed save rather than just take lots of damage that might destroy it. Since immunity to [petrification] is more rare than immunity to [death] effects, FtS trumps Finger of Death in most cases, at one spell level lower. To balance it IMO, it needs a higher save penalty than Poly Other, and a lower penalty than FoD. And not destroy equipment etc. to be useful. Inv Stalker: Discussed already Pierce Magic: Wut?! Have you considered the implications of one spell completely stripping MR for "a bunch of rounds"? Even if it's only for 1 round, consider that this fits in the biggest spell trigger. Or time stop, alacrity etc. I would really want this power at my fingertips: the next bunch of spells I cast have MR = no. Sorry lich, sorry dragon. Didn't you get the memo? Flesh to Stone: I'm fine with removing it completely, making it a non-you Stoneskin or a more limited version of Freedom (cure most statuses) or perhaps provide some status immunities for a while. True Seeing: Yey to not dispelling clones! (and the other changes too KW Whip: You lost me here... will it still strip spell protections or do something else entirely? Mantle: I suggest making a gradual progression from PfNW and PfMW via the level 7 and 8 mantles up to Absolute Immunity, adding more stuff along the way so to speak. So Mantle could include PfNW+PfMW and some short duration elemental immunities, Improved Mantle could add some more immunities (perhaps 100% damage immunity and 100% magic resistance) and finally Absolute Immunity would top it all off. This is my idea for a nice, smoothe spell suite much like the elemental immunity spells. A benefit of this approach is that you don't *have to* pick PfMW specifically as a sorceror (or have all AI mages memo it). You could opt for level 7-9 alternatives instead and not miss out on the functionality - indeed get even more functionality. As for a mass or long duration PfMW variant, I'm not sure that would be a good direction to go for the mantles. Project Image: If you make it completely illusionary, I think it should be implemented more as a "displaced point of origin" for casted spells, much like being able to cast spells from a distance into a Farsighted area. Can this be done? (The AI response would be to dispel, summon a demon which teleports magically to your true location or flee in panic - which is really what they should be doing now if they see a Project Image clone). If you want a simple way to nerf it more, I a fixed 1 turn duration would be appropriate. The spell gets more and more silly the longer it lasts and the more spells you can unleash for free. Level 8: Everything here seems fine. I've commented on mantles already and the level tweaking of symbols and power words seems reasonable. Level 9 Absolute Immunity: I think you should think even bigger (the Time Stop comparison shows this). For me to even consider this as a spell for my sorceror, I would need: *Equal or better duration than PfMW (casting time 1 goes without saying) *Complete immunity to any effect in the game, including 100% damage immunity, 100% MR and immunity to ability/level drain, petrification, polymorph, death blah blah. Complete and utter safety for the duration - untouchable. No bosses should be able to ignore this spell, as they can Time Stop. Absolutely NOTHING in the entire trilogy can get through. *Almost impossible to remove. Wait it out or flee in terror. It would be OK for me if Spell Strike could remove it though, since it would simply mean that you need a level 9 spell to cancel a level 9 spell, which is only fair. If you do this, you can probably throw out Spell Trap too and never have to worry about recharging loops again. You have The One Protection Spell that does it all at 9th level, albeit for a short duration. As a side note, what were seeing here is a consolidation of magical, physical and elemental protections. The current buff/debuff system isn't really equipped to handle this, since it dispels more "by category". My suggestion is that for spells up to level 6-7, we should be looking at partial immunities (for example one element, all elements, spell deflection, weapons damage etc.) and counter measure that auto dispel one or a few of these (Breach, Secret Word, True Seeing). But from around level 7-8 we should look at more complete solutions. Like Spell Strike dispelling all combat, specific and spell protections in a small AoE but being stopped by Spell Shield, or Improved Mantle and Absolute Immunity granting powerful blanket immunities. A lesser caster may achieve a similar level of protection by casting 5-6 buffs that a high arcanist can accomplish through a single word. Same with tearing down those protections. Is this an acceptable direction to think in for SRv4 do you think? BBoD: The balance issue here depends more on the base wielder (Kensai/Mage?) much like Tenser's Transformation. Some of these spells will always be must haves for certain builds - it was the same in PnP. But if you want to make it more generally useful, why not let it target anyone so the wizard can give it to the fighter? Then you can balance it from the perspective of counting on an able wielder. As a temporary weapon costing a 9th level spell, I think it would have to be significantly more powerful than the cheesiest weapon in ToB, and scale well beyond level 17 for balance reasons. Energy Drain: The appeal to this spell would really be if it would grant you some benefit in addition to debilitating the opponent. Otherwise you're better off with Imprisonment or PW:Kill etc. In fact, if we do away with Spell Trap to avoid loops, this could be a more balanced way to replenish your spells a bit in combat. For example it could drain X levels, restore X spell levels and heal you X hp, where X is half your caster level. So a 30th level caster would slay a 15 HD target outright and use the energy to restore, say, a 9th level (the one used for Energy Drain) and a 6th level spell slot and heal 15 hp. Abuse could be avoided by not letting it stack much like Vampiric Touch (so you won't just summon fodder and drain them to replenish spells). It becomes a way to conserve resources when fighting lesser foes. Against a more powerful enemy, you're probably better off using Imprisonment etc. instead. Imprisonment: Making this save yes makes it completely uninteresting IMO. I use this spell as an out to gated demons (needing a 9th level spell to counter a 7-9th level summon is not OP). You can't even use it on a planetar, dragon or most (all?) ToB bosses. As for caster duals, if you can get an offensive single target touch spell to resolve on your opponent, you have already won - Imprisonment or not. Imprisonment is already balanced within SCS due to the many powerful creatures immune to it and loosing XP/gear on lesser foes. If you add a save to this and do the suggested change to Pierce Magic, I would probably pick Flesh to Stone over this one. PW Kill: Even more creatures are immune to death than to imprisonment. Imprisonment is no save, no MR. This is suggested to be a maybe save and MR yes. The only benefit is the range and casting time. How about removing the save and hp limit entirely? A clean no save, single target kill spell. Contrasting it to WotB which is mass but allows a save. Still easy to thwart with Death Ward, innate death immunity and magic resistance. Avada Kedavra! Spell Trap: Has this type of effect been anything but trouble since you started with Spell Revisions? With the newly upgraded Absolute Immunity, I think we can say goodbye to this spell at long last. Staff of the Magi could be reconfigured to provide Absolute Immunity once per day instead, or some such. Spellstrike: Already commented on implicitly but I like your ideas so far in the OP. I say go all the way. Have it strip everything in its small AoE (including Absolute Immunity), much like a guaranteed Remove Magic, but thwarted momentarily by Spell Shield. This means a prudent sorceror would open up with a small spell stripper to get rid of Spell Shield and allow a chance to recast the spell shield before Big Bertha hits. Time Stop: David said yes, so out the physical attacks must go IMO. Less power to Kensai Mages. Boo hoo. Wish and Limited Wish: If it is a realtively simple programming task, I would much condone if these were thrown out the window in their current form and remade with the sole function of providing versatility on the fly by letting you cast a lesser spell through a menu (useful for both wizards and sorcerors). For example, Limited Wish could duplicate any arcane spell of level 5 or lower and any priest spell of level 3 or lower. Wish could do the same for level 7 arcane/level 5 divine. Less risk for being situationally overpowered/useless, completely predictable, useful for all but not always a good choice and overall a fair deal. I just worry about bugs when adding menus into menus. For example, will the game crash when a chain contingency triggers a limited wish which summons a lesser elemental which in turn is chosen to be a fire elemental etc. etc? I have no idea! Anyway, out with the Dao and wisdom requirements, in with versatility and spell selection - if its readily doable. For me, this is a far greater priority than some of the new summons you've mentioned in passing (and I know these would require lots of work to implement as well). We get something closer to PnP as well! Phew, a long post. To sum up my key suggestions: *Why not make summons trigger traps? *Can't we use Mantle and Improved Mantle to "bridge the gap" between PfMW and Absolute Immunity as was probably intended by Bioware to begin with? *Maybe we should create a separate thread to discuss in depth the various physical, specific and spell protections, what will strip/thwart what and how to balance it all by level? Might be easier to get an overview that way. For example, the Breach vs. Stoneskin issue is less important if Spell Strike tears down everything (Stoneskin included). I shall have a look at the new spells suggested for v4 and continue commenting in this thread later as well
  13. Wow, this thread has been an interesting read. I really like what's in the pipeline so far. I have lots of feedback, though most things are in agreement with what has already been said. I'll get into specifics into another post later when I have more time, but here are some general comments. On "necromantic" damage: Skull Trap and ADHW has always been the "no brainer" AoE spells due to their damage type bypassing most immunities (and practicality). SRv3 balanced them pretty well, but for flavor reasons, I really think all constructs and undead (incl. Mordy Swords) should be immune to these spells to make them less catch-all. Also - and some will probably hate me for this - but is there a good reason that ADHW is party friendly? Except that Bioware created it like that, much like the much debated no-SR on Sunfire? To me, party friendly AoE is part of the priestly portfolio, not high necromantic arcana. And on that note, all that applies to these spells should also apply to the Cause Wounds series, unless it is already so (don't really use those spells much so I don't know). It might be appropriate for Skull Trap to heal undead like CW type spells, but probably not with ADHW. On [force] damage: Magic Missile and the new Force Missiles should IMO be the only spells that uses pure magical damage without restrictions. These have traditionally been SR yes, save no, single target autohit, long range effects. (Setting aside Bigby hands). I know level 4 is true to PnP for the Force Missiles, but have you considered putting them in say, level 7, and making them more powerful instead? Level 4 is so crowded already and level 7 only has what, DBF as direct damage options? Apart from that, I really like the other "streamlining" suggestions - putting all elemental summons and elemental protections in one spell with a menu and making spell triggers/contingencies innate abilities. Has it been considered to make Dimension Door a very limited (LoS) innate at will ability like Paladin's Detect Evil? It would fit the logic of AI wizards always having and using it, and would be quite fun/useful if care to balance it is taking. And save the trouble of having to decide on which spell slot to put it in. The Invisible Stalker changes are *very* welcome news for my solo sorceror who already uses the spell for its long duration. I use a rabbit familiar with Invisibility on it currently together with a few IS to explore, however the trap detection on the rabbit is far from ideal and not being able to handle the traps is frustrating at times. I would suggest removing Wizard Eye from level 4 and rolling it into Invisible Stalker and adding divine Find Traps to it, plus perhaps reducing its toughness (it should still compare to the likes of Skeleton Warriors though, so maybe not necessary). However, rather than adding trap *removal* to it, I'd simply make ALL summons trigger traps. It's quite logical really - if a walking humanoid triggers a trap, why doesn't a summoned ogre? Is it illusory or quasi-real? No. I'd like for all SRs summons to follow you between areas and trigger traps. Sounds fair? More later, dinner awaits!
  14. ^This. Streamlining on a high level of detail might be the best compliment SR could get. It means you've already sorted out the big problems and we can start thinking about harmonizing aesthetics. Before, players we're complaining we had no roofs on buildings - now we're thinking about if the carpet should be burgundy or oxblood. My opinion on this in general is that consistency and predictability are quite important. A player should be able to read a spell description and draw appropriate conclusions. For example, a player familiar with invisible stalkers, know that they are wispy and have a flying speed. Reading the web and grease spell descriptions, he will assume that they will be immune to these effects and plan accordingly. It would be good if SR ensured that this was the case. OTOH, reading the web spell description, nothing is said about fire negating it etc. so I don't think this would be as highly prioritized for v4 just because webs behave in this or that fashion in PnP or the real world.
  15. Re: Spiders, I agree with Ardanis and Dakk. It would be nice if in-game spiders shared such immunities, but such consistency isn't mandatory IMO. Summoned fiends aren't identical to all in-game fiends either, no? Re: Mordy Sword. Agree with Demi. The idea of a 2nd level Web entangling a hovering +4 sword of force is strange. I like this, it makes it more balanced IMO and both genies present you with different tactical options/combinations. Which cloud spells? As elemental plane natives, I really think Djinn and Efreet should have the same basic immunities as other elementals, including Invisible Stalker (hold, poison, sleep, & stun effects). Anything immune to poison should in turn be immune to Stinking Cloud and Cloudkill. I'm not seeing why Djinn should be immune to Acid Fog or Incendiary Cloud though. Re: Planetars: I think both planetars and devas should be immune to grease and web, mainly because it would be very sad otherwise considering their other more potent immunities. "I can't Imprison you, but you *will* fall to this pool of lard, you extraplanar creature, you!" @Phordicus: I thought about that too - it's very fitting and PnP kosher, but I wonder if it will be difficult to implement. Anyone holding a flame weapon (MMM, Flame blade, certain items etc.) or having a fiery aura should really be immune to Web if these are the flammable PnP webs. Would be nice if the AI could use this counter too in that case. Otherwise, we'll have to accept that this is simply not your father's Web spell. EDIT: On second thought, if Webs were flammable, you shouldn't be able to combine Incendiary Cloud and Web either so... I guess we can't have it all. Maybe it's simpler to just keep BG webs non-flammable. That way, djinn and efreet also get different immunities. Efreet in an Incendiary Cloud seems like a powerful tactical option, but so does Djinn in a web/grease/cloudkill matrix.
  • Create New...